RE: Joe Lieberman: I am damned sick and tired of the BASE of the

[rateyes]

Democratic Party being taken for granted. It wasn't the "moderates," the "blue dogs," or the "independents" who went out there and busted their damned chops to get these moderates, bluedogs, and "independent minded assholes we all know as DINOs elected. It was the BASE that did that. We, progressives, are the ones mose responsible for the Democratic majority and a new Democratic administration, and what happens when the BASE asks for that prick Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanships and his place in the party structure because he WORKED AS HARD AS HE FUCKING COULD TO DEFEAT US in the last election???

NOTHING. GODDAMNED FUCKING NOTHING.

The Democrats don't give a shit what we say, because they believe (and, probably know) that we have no other place to go. And, every two years we pound the pavement and give our money, and work our tails off getting the Dems elected, and then after they get in they PISS ON US by allowing Lieberman to PISS ON US with impunity.


I am tired of this BULLSHIT!!

To hell with Lieberman. To hell with Reid. To hell with every Democrat that allowed Lieberman to stay.

As far as I'm concerned they all can go fuck themselves. After all, they fuck us over every chance they get.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR...........:banghead: :mad:

[DJ13]

1. Dont hold back, you're on a roll!

:thumbsup:

[marylanddem]

2. I feel just the way you do. It is so fucking infuriating.

But somehow I feel there WILL be consequences. In a way it was a "fuck you" to Obama, too, to let Liarman keep his chairmanship.

[Critters2]

17. No there won't. And Obama wanted it.

This is what he meant when he talked about "reaching across the aisle" for the last 10 months.

[PassingFair]

24. We shouldn't HAVE to reach across the aisle to reach Lieberman.

He's SUPPOSED to be on OUR side.

But he's NOT.

[Critters2]

30. Hasn't been on our side since he ran against our side. This isn't brain surgery. nt

[tsuki]

59. Did he? What did you expect him to say? Obama wanted Lieberman

in charge of a committee that can investigate him concerning every Republican talking point.

It was the senate Democrats decision, and they huddled in a mass, afraid of an open vote to proclaim to their base, "Oh no, we just can't."

[Critters2]

18. delete. dupe. nt

[Stand and Fight]

3. I'm a moderate and I did go out there and bust my butt.

On that same note, I think Lieberman should not only lose his chairmanship, but be expelled from the Democratic Caucus all-together. That rat-bastard should not have the ability to hear what goes down in our policy meetings and strategy sessions.

Don't demonize us just because of that piss-ant Lieberman. In fact, there were a good number of liberals on this board rooting for that jerk after he changed parties and ran against the Democratic nominee in 2006 -- moderates were with them as well. Either way, we don't hear much from those folks anymore now that they've been proven wrong.


So, some moderates do agree with you. :hug:

[truebrit71]

4. Keep your friends close, and your enemas closer...

...or something like that :evilgrin:

I don't like it anymore than you do, but I'd rather have that treasonous bastard out in the open where we can watch him, than underground doing who knows what, with who knows whom...

[tyne]

5. Actually

real progressives don't give a rip if Joe gets to keep his chair.

[NikolaC]

21. But Not As Chairman of The Homeland Security Committee

Damn, this pisses me off too! They knew that the "base" would be pissed off, that is why they voted by secret ballot. LIEberman did NOTHING in his role as committee chairman to investigate the role of the Bush non-Administration in some of the worst messes in this country over the years. He is technically not even a Dem. So, what do they do after he manipulates and stabs them in the back time and again? They reward the rat by not kicking him out or, at the very least, removing him from his chaimanship. What a spineless bunch of idiots. You know that they are going to regret this move, he will just continue to do more of the same. In LIEberman's case, I don't believe that the "enemies closer" saying holds.

[mdavies013]

6. Lieberman is an A-hole...but

1) We need the magic 60 and one vote could count.

2) He is loyal...if it gives him power and promise.

3) WE CAN WORK HARD TO MAKE SURE HE LOSES HIS SEAT IN CT IN 2010.

We have to work with the congress we have and continue to make changes each election cycle.

[johnlal]

10. If his vote changes simply because he lost his Chairmanship...

Can we really trust that he won't change his vote anyway?

[kaygore]

15. Aren't senators elected every 6 years? so he would be up for election in 2012?

[NikolaC]

22. 2012

He is not due for re-election until 2012.

[Skittles]

51. LOL

what makes you think he will vote Dem?

[blueclown]

7. I've been saying this for a while.

The liberal base of the Democratic Party gets taken for granted. The party brass think that that they can do whatever they like and the liberal base will always come home and vote for them. They think they can throw us and our philosophy under the bus at will with no repercussions.

That needs to change.

[BzaDem]

8. That's how party politics in any system works.

A party will take its base for granted -- because they are correct in that they have nowhere else to go. That is what it needs to do to win elections. I can almost guarantee that if you were the sole decision-maker on what our platform would be, Democrats would never be out of the wilderness.

[Critters2]

19. Some lefties went to the Greens in 2000. The "moderates" should keep that in mind. nt

[Nederland]

27. They did indeed go Green

And after eight years of Bush, I don't think many of them will repeat the mistake.

[Critters2]

28. But they could. They could. Dems should keep that in mind. nt

[BzaDem]

34. Doesn't matter. If we try to please these faux-progressives, we would lose moderates and lose anyway

People always have the right to vote completely against their own values (and be partially responsible for Iraq, Katrina handling, etc.) Nothing is going to change that. Winning an election is a massive balancing act. If one goes too far to the left, moderates get alienated. If a Democrat knew that going far enough to the left to appease faux-progressives would not alienate moderates, that Democrat would do so and there would be no issue.

[Critters2]

35. Faux-progressives? Just what, in your opinion, is a real progressive? nt

[BzaDem]

43. Someone who considers themself progressive and never voted for Nader.

I don't consider anyone who considered Gore and Bush to be the same, and wanted to punish the country by voting for Nader to give us Bush (so a more progressive candidate would emerge in the future) a true progressive.

[No Elephants]

46. Both Nader and the Green Party got a lot of votes this time around too. They just did not

cost us the election this time. You could say that they cost us Missouri, but McCain could say that rightist third parties balanced them out. Even a lot of Floridians voted Nader or Green. After 8 years of Bush, you'd think they would have learned, but noooooooooo.

[johnlal]

9. If one of Obama's Staffers had said this stuff...

If one of Obama's staffers had said that Obama doesn't support the troops, and was fired because of it, would that be retribution? Of course not.

[EndElectoral]

11. Unfortunately, this party speaks much more for the Center than the Progressives

This is why people grow cynical, and why the youth sometimes doesn't show up to vote. They hope for change and get more of the fucking same. Capitulation to corporate America and the rehiring of the same damn insiders.

[MsLeopard]

12. ITA

Our Congress - all of them - are nothing more than an insiders club taking care of themselves and to hell with everyone else. Every couple of years we get to go vote on electronic unverifiable machines that give the perception of democracy. But we've been a plutocracy for many years now. And the plutocrats couldn't care less for we the proles.

[mmonk]

13. Nothing new. Except this time, we hold the cards for the next election.

[riverwalker]

14. at least 13 had some balls

those 13 that voted against him. Whoever you are::toast:

[rateyes]

16. Yes.

:toast:

[Skittles]

48. male body parts are not required for courage

you should know that

[alwysdrunk]

20. I agree about Lieberman but you are overestimating the BASE

There were a lot of people who put in work and yes, a lot of them were progressives. But think about how much of a difference that $700 million made in putting Obama over the top. How do you figure the bulk of that came from progressives? That money came from people of all political stripes who were desperate for Change in America. I have to think quite a few moderates and even probably some conservatives did their part there.


Still. Fuck Lieberman though.

[unblock]

23. liberman represents connecticut REPUBLICANS

lamont (d) got 40% of the vote.
schlessinger (r) got 10% of the vote.
lieberman (i) got 50% of the vote.

given that connecticut is somewhat balanced between democrats and republicans, and surely lamont's 40% was nearly all from democrats, it seems obvious that the vast majority of lieberman's voters were republicans.

it's not even the things he himself has done. it's who he represents. he represents republicans, not democrats.

[leftist.]

25. Hate radio was doing GOTV efforts for Lieberman ...

... for months before the vote. Strategically it was a smart move for them of course, but you are right to point out that Lieberman owes the fact that he kept his seat to hate radio and CT republicans.

[Nederland]

26. The BASE always gets taken for granted

In both parties. The bottom line is that candidates know that independents swing elections. When a member of your base gets pissed off at you, they have no option but stay home. That means your spread increases by one vote. When an independent gets pissed off at you, they probably vote for the other party. That means your spread increases by two votes. Hence the focus on the "middle"--targeting independent is twice as effective as targeting the base.

It's just the simple reality of politics and it will always be true.

[Critters2]

29. Bullshit. Palin was a bone thrown to the GOP base. Just once, I'd like the Dems to make a decision

based on what the base would like. Just once.

[alwysdrunk]

32. And Palin lost McCain the election

Thanks, you just made the point for playing to the center. If Obama had picked someone as left as Palin is right we'd be talking about President elect McCain and contemplating starting a new third party.

[Critters2]

33. More and more, I think we need more than 2 parties. I'd like my voice to count once in a while. nt

[BzaDem]

37. Then try to get the system changed. But don't pretend that we actually have three parties now.

As long as the Constitution stays as it is, we are in a mathematical two-party system, and the base's views will need to be balanced with the moderates' views. That's just how it works. The problem with Nader and the people who voted for him is that they think that by pretending that this is not the case, things can actually get accomplished (other than Iraq/Katrina/Guantanamo/etc). I'm not saying that you voted for Nader or anything -- I'm just trying to make the point that the problem is really the system (not the parties or candidates).

[Critters2]

38. Why does that "balance" ALWAYS seem to favor the "moderates".

Remind me again...what does "balance" mean?

[OwnedByFerrets]

31. I agree....I was so afraid this would happen....and it is.

[JuniperLea]

36. Pssst....

Just because some DUers don't get what's going on in Obama's head doesn't mean Obama is an idiot.

By turning one last cheek and giving LIEberman a pass, Obama takes the upper hand in this. Once false step and LIEberman incurs the wrath. Works for me. Meanwhile, he owes Obama... he'll be voting with the Dems in any case.

[Critters2]

39. You mean on MORE false step. And then one more after that, and then...

Please, Lieberman knows who won today.

[soothsayer]

40. Israel holds alot of sway with our gov. They like this guy.

He ain't going anywhere. Get used to him.

[Larkspur]

41. In 2010, I will not vote for Chris Dodd. I'll write in Ralph Nader instead.

[Larkspur]

42. In 2010, I will not vote for Chris Dodd. I'll write in Ralph Nader instead.

[TexasObserver]

44. I can see I'm going to enjoy this.

It's two weeks after the election, and you're already out on the ledge, threatening to jump.

Do it.

Governance is about competence first, and finding the middle second.

The election was not won by the same people who voted for Gore, Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis. It was won by people who didn't vote for them. Obama is smarter than all his critics here, and understands politics much, much better.

If you thought Obama was going to be your personal proxy, you had foolish expectations. I expect him to be competent, not pristine.

[Skittles]

49. LIEBERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we are talking about that BASTARD LIEBERMAN

[rateyes]

67. I'm not criticizing Obama. I'm criticizing the idiots in the Senate

who let him keep his chairmanship. BTW, were the NEW Democratic Senators there to elect these chairs??

[Think82]

45. 2 words: 60 votes

When Lieberman's vote helps stop a filibuster on universal healthcare or cap & trade on emissions, I think you may change your mind.

[TexasObserver]

50. Yes. The Obama rationale: LIEberman is one of about three votes he needs to stop filibuster.

Obama is very close to having what he needs most: The CLOTURE VOTE trump card in the senate.

The House is done. The majority there is solid. But the senate is archaic, and their rules give 41 votes the ability to stop anything from getting through. Obama is soundly moving to get 60 plus votes to stop filibuster. When he has that, he can push through his first 100 day package of changes. It is critical that he not get blocked.

Is Lieberman's one vote worth it? Obama thinks so, and he's driving this country and party now.

Rocko can take Lieberman's sorry ass fishing on Lake Tahoe in a couple of years, for all I care, but right now, Obama needs him to help stop filibuster.

[depakid]

47. If the trend continues, 2010 will be a repeat of 1994

when the base stayed home.

[BzaDem]

52. Oh yeah, we only lost massively in 1994 because Clinton didn't appease the base enough.

Yay for revisionist history.

I love making fun of Republicans who believe McCain lost because he wasn't far enough to the right. But it is hard to do that when there are actually people in the Democratic party who believe that we don't win enough elections because we aren't further to the left. In fact, it is somewhat easier to understand the Republican foolishness, because only one of their far-right candidates lost in a landslide in recent history (where there were at least 4 elections where the farther-left presidential candidate lost in massive landslides).

[depakid]

53. "appease" LOL. How about some HONEST history

rather than shallow mischaracterizations:

Think about 1994.

Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). A

Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns. This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide.

I spent that campaign season traveling to promote a book on campus activism, staying with friends long involved with progressive causes. Everywhere I went, critical races would go to the Republicans by the narrowest of margins. Yet my friends and their friends seemed strangely detached, so disgusted with Democratic politics that they no longer wanted anything to do with it. Surveys found that had voters who stayed home voted, they would have reversed the election outcome. Even a modest volunteer effort might have prevented the Republican sweep.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

If history repeats itself- so called "centrist" Democrats and their apologists (who never seem to learn) will have only themselves to blame.

[BzaDem]

55. Your argument fails even on its own terms.

Even your own Huffington Post article admits that the defeat was equally due to 'angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America."'

I don't think you will find any serious political analyst (even people at the Huffington Post) that would argue that if only progressives volunteered more, we would have won in 1994. Maybe we would have lost by less, but we would not have won.

The truth is, you just don't like the fact that the country is not as liberal as you are. You look for ways to "punish" representatives for best representing all of their constituents, and not some small part of them. If you want real change, you need to change public opinion. Trying to get policies the country is not ready to swallow by attempting to "punish" representatives by withholding your vote or your time does not work. There are 4 Republican landslides against liberal-democratic candidates in recent memory to prove my point of what appeasing the base on every issue actually does.

[depakid]

60. Defeat was predominantly due to so called "centists" enabling and legitimizing right wing policies

and alienating the base- something Republicans never did in all of their 12 years in power. Indeed, they did and said outrageous and extreme and pushed far right policies that people who post things like you do would decry as political suicide (if you looked at matters objectively from a political science perspective).

FACT is that the data show your shallow characterizations are a myth- and a dishonest, self defeating one at that.

But don't believe me- look at the data for yourself:

The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth

Executive summary: http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/

Full report: http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/progressive_majority.pdf

-------------

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007
Political Landscape More Favorable To Democrats (Pew Research Center)

Executive summary: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/434/trends-in-political-values-and-core-attitudes-1987-2007

Full Report: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/312.pdf

[wyldwolf]

63. right! Gays in the military, health care, gun control... right wing policies to the core! LOL!

[BzaDem]

65. Once again, your argument fails on its own terms.

In every subsequent congressional election after 1994 during Clinton's two terms, the Republicans lost seats in Congress. Not to mention that your analysis now completely ignores the real reason why we lost in 1994, as confirmed by your own Huffington Post article (not the fantasy-land reason that there weren't enough progressives knocking on doors). Also not to mention that Clinton's veto pen moderated much of the more extreme policies the Republicans wanted to enact.

Every election is about the lesser of two evils. You may very well be right that right-leaning Republicans are less stupid than left-leaning Democrats, in that they realize how a two-party system works and vote Republican even when the Republicans in office don't throw them as much red meat as they would like. But that doesn't mean that appealing to the base to lose moderates is an effective strategy -- it just means that left-leaning Democrats need time to see and understand the consequences of their actions (Iraq, Katrina, etc.) before coming back into reality and voting for Democrats. The time for voting for a more liberal candidate is during the primaries, not during the general -- and Republicans appear understand that a lot more than Democrats do (to the extent that your theory about the Republican base is correct).

I can produce tons of papers that say that Roosevelt prolonged the Depression with his New Deal, and that the way to end the Depression sooner was to have completely laissez-faire policies. But that doesn't make that propaganda any less laughable.

[depakid]

66. It's ridiculous to claim that after shutting down the government

along with the host of radical policies and statements coming out of the far right that a loss of a few seats (not even close to losing power) is anything but a victory. The position you're asserting calls for a major repudiation- althugh you'd have it work in the other direction.

As to your strawman re: the New Deal, I don't how that's remotely relevant to the multiple data sources showing that, on issue after issue, Americans have decided progressive attitudes beliefs and values- and support progressive positions, often by substantial majorities.

Bottom line is that in thw 1990's and early 2000's the Democrats abandoned their traditonal values and adopted Republican policies. They blurred the contrast to such an extent that many people saw few difference between the parties,

And on many issues- such as failure to enact or enforce consumer laws and the corrupt deregulation of the financial, accounting, energy and media industry, they were right. There wasn't a dimes' worth of difference.

This election was a referrendum on those failed policies.

If people perceive once that Obama and the Democratic Congress are offering more of the same- a somewhat lesser of evils rather than the change they hoped for, a similar fate will befall the Dems in 2010- as it did in 1994.

And they will deserve it.

[wyldwolf]

57. Honest history?? LOL!

Paul Loeb conveniently forgets these events from 1994:

Rubbergate

The first nationwide mobilization of the Christian right

A number of Democratic house retirements from districts that had been trending Republican since '68

Southern gerrymandering

A President who immediately tried to tackle liberal issues like health care, gun control, and gay rights

Why are these events never mentioned in the "progressive" version on '94? Because it conflicts with their revisionist version of history, as does the fact Clinton won again in '96 and picked up house seats in '98.

[BzaDem]

58. I know. It's like saying Roosevelt's New Deal prolonged the depression.

It is easily demonstrably false, but the truth doesn't fit in with the propaganda (in this case of conservatives), so they just make something up and hope that saying it enough will make it true.

[wyldwolf]

56. yep, that about sums it up.

[wyldwolf]

54. tired of this BULLSHIT??

It wasn't the "moderates," the "blue dogs," or the "independents" who went out there and busted their damned chops to get these moderates, bluedogs, and "independent minded assholes we all know as DINOs elected.

This is bullshit on 2 levels:

1. Yes, "moderates," the "blue dogs," and the "independents" have been busting their ass to get Democrats elected for decades - and we did this go 'round, too. Your assumption is just another Howard Dean-era myth among "progressives" that they invented activism.

2. DINOS? See #1. I'll also add "Johnny Come Lately" to the list of labels I'd apply.

[depakid]

62. Yep -Very tired of dishonest, ill informed DINO's

who enable. legitimize and cross over to support FAILED and irrational far right policies.

[wyldwolf]

64. so am I. Especially the ones who whine about DINOS on message boards

[shadowknows69]

61. Get it out

[invictus]

68. K&R